CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 49021/08 Smbat AYVAZYAN against Armenia lodged on 24 September 2008     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     1.     Was the applicant’s detention between 15 and 22 July 2008 lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the domestic courts provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s detention both at the investigation and trial stages as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the refusal of the Criminal Court of Appeal to examine the applicant’s appeal of 24 June 2008 violate the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charge against him, as required by Article 6 § 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular: -     did the refusal of the trial court to grant the applicant’s motions to call additional witnesses violate his right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him? -     did the applicant’s impossibility to question police officers S.H. and A.H., who were witnesses against him, violate the applicant’s right to examine witnesses against him?   5.     Did the applicant’s prosecution and subsequent conviction amount to an interference with his right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? If so, did such interference comply with the requirements of Articles 10 § 2 and 11   §   2 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant, by being prosecuted and convicted, fall victim to discrimination on the basis of his political opinion in violation of the guarantees of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit audio transcripts of the court examination of the applicant’s appeal by the Criminal Court of Appeal.